I pay for the Master subscription. I like the content sharing, but I play more than 3 campaigns (I'm currently DMing 5). In addition, I've NEVER played a campaign with 12 players. Could we find a way to balance that out a bit better? I mean, something as simple as 6 campaigns with 6 players or better yet, unlimited campaigns but you can't do content sharing if you have more than 36 characters with content sharing. Just the numbers "3" and "12" seem really arbitrary and I think that there's a better balance to be had.
I would *love* to have it be a total character limit, rather than a campaign limit. I DM 2 campaigns, and play in 3, altogether there's 22 characters (only across 13 players though)... But we have to "combine" campaigns in order for me to share, despite not coming close to the character limit. If it was a total character limit, problem solved.
Heck, if they let me pay extra money per month to add more campaigns, I'd do that, too!
I run 5 campaigns. Several different players. Many have multiple characters. Through juggling characters and making some inactive or changing sharing settings between the various five campaigns, I'm able to effectively give every player partial content for everything I own. The fact that I can do this is proof that restricting content to 3 campaigns, 12 characters each, is pointless. It is simply annoying and extra work on my part. I understand that the hope is to generate more income by having more people buy the books, but for folks like myself who run a large campaign with multiple characters, many of whom simply create multiple secondary characters, the extra steps to juggle things is neither doing what WotC hopes nor what I would like to see occur. I'm also willing to pay more per month for additional campaigns, so long as the number was reasonable. But, there are so many dedicated DMs that run many campaigns or AL leagues to where this limitation is just annoying. :O
Would it be so bad to have someone in your 4th and 5th campaigns also get the master tier and enable sharing so your books get shared? The 12 limit I'd say isn't intended to be used often. It's a service after all and 36 people getting free use of the site with all content is a bit crazy. If you want all your campaigns to use your books just ask a player in each, or a player that is in both, to get a master subscription so they can share your books with everyone.
I just would like to remind that one can disable the sharing on a campaign slot anytime without making the players losing the information on their characters. The sharing is needed only when the players need to upload information they do not possess on the character sheet.
I just would like to remind that one can disable the sharing on a campaign slot anytime without making the players losing the information on their characters. The sharing is needed only when the players need to upload information they do not possess on the character sheet.
That is very useful to know. Does it say that in the sharing information? If it does, I must have been really intoxicated when I read it (probably).
I too would like the ability to share with more than 3 campaigns for a small fee. Maybe like a Gold Master tier or something.
I mean it would cost a little more, but wouldn't you be able to share in those other campaigns as long as 1 other person bought the subscription? Your content will still share, you just can't be the one to turn on content sharing. If you're playing 5 games concurrently, it seems like DnD is a big part of your life, and if you're using DnDBeyond for all 5 of them its clearly useful to you. You could also have everyone split the subscription cost if they're using it so much as well.
It's possible to apply as a club or a store and get more campaign slots. (Go here and make sure "Club or Store application" is chosen in the first drop-down) As far as I know, it's not possible for the "general public" to do so.
Through juggling characters and making some inactive or changing sharing settings between the various five campaigns, I'm able to effectively give every player partial content for everything I own. The fact that I can do this is proof that restricting content to 3 campaigns, 12 characters each, is pointless. It is simply annoying and extra work on my part. I understand that the hope is to generate more income by having more people buy the books, but for folks like myself who run a large campaign with multiple characters, many of whom simply create multiple secondary characters, the extra steps to juggle things is neither doing what WotC hopes nor what I would like to see occur. I'm also willing to pay more per month for additional campaigns, so long as the number was reasonable. But, there are so many dedicated DMs that run many campaigns or AL leagues to where this limitation is just annoying. :O
I agree, the limits that they provide for Campaign Content Sharing is a little vague, and the reasoning doesn't make sense. I also run several games for all of my friends, and typically they grow to the point of everyone having at least 1, if not 2, backup characters. On top of DMing more than 3 different campaigns each month. I wish they would provide a different way to enable content sharing, and also restrict content sharing as well.
I would really like the capability to control which source books were shared with a campaign. There are the toggles that allow you to turn off Homebrew, Critical Role, Playtest, MTG, and Eberrin content, but these are DURING CHARACTER CREATION. If these were settings that could be controlled within the Shared Campaign by the Dungeon Master, then that would prevent a lot of miscommunications between my players and I.
I refuse to purchase the Legendary Bundle, and the Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica until either 1.) All my players have demonstrated the understanding of how to control the content they have access to. or 2.) I have the ability to remove MTG from the "Shared Content" of the campaign itself. Another setting that would be wonderful would be the ability to Toggle Monster Races.
the I would rather have the capability to control what I share of mine within one of my campaigns that I created and shared with my friends. It makes more sense to have the Dungeon Master control the options available at the campaign level, than EACH individual controlling it during Character Creation. I know this could be difficult, but it would also be ideal in my eyes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I pay for the Master subscription. I like the content sharing, but I play more than 3 campaigns (I'm currently DMing 5). In addition, I've NEVER played a campaign with 12 players. Could we find a way to balance that out a bit better? I mean, something as simple as 6 campaigns with 6 players or better yet, unlimited campaigns but you can't do content sharing if you have more than 36 characters with content sharing. Just the numbers "3" and "12" seem really arbitrary and I think that there's a better balance to be had.
I would *love* to have it be a total character limit, rather than a campaign limit. I DM 2 campaigns, and play in 3, altogether there's 22 characters (only across 13 players though)... But we have to "combine" campaigns in order for me to share, despite not coming close to the character limit. If it was a total character limit, problem solved.
Heck, if they let me pay extra money per month to add more campaigns, I'd do that, too!
I run 5 campaigns. Several different players. Many have multiple characters. Through juggling characters and making some inactive or changing sharing settings between the various five campaigns, I'm able to effectively give every player partial content for everything I own. The fact that I can do this is proof that restricting content to 3 campaigns, 12 characters each, is pointless. It is simply annoying and extra work on my part. I understand that the hope is to generate more income by having more people buy the books, but for folks like myself who run a large campaign with multiple characters, many of whom simply create multiple secondary characters, the extra steps to juggle things is neither doing what WotC hopes nor what I would like to see occur. I'm also willing to pay more per month for additional campaigns, so long as the number was reasonable. But, there are so many dedicated DMs that run many campaigns or AL leagues to where this limitation is just annoying. :O
Would it be so bad to have someone in your 4th and 5th campaigns also get the master tier and enable sharing so your books get shared? The 12 limit I'd say isn't intended to be used often. It's a service after all and 36 people getting free use of the site with all content is a bit crazy. If you want all your campaigns to use your books just ask a player in each, or a player that is in both, to get a master subscription so they can share your books with everyone.
Just my thoughts, please don't kill me
I just would like to remind that one can disable the sharing on a campaign slot anytime without making the players losing the information on their characters. The sharing is needed only when the players need to upload information they do not possess on the character sheet.
That is very useful to know. Does it say that in the sharing information? If it does, I must have been really intoxicated when I read it (probably).
I too would like the ability to share with more than 3 campaigns for a small fee. Maybe like a Gold Master tier or something.
I mean it would cost a little more, but wouldn't you be able to share in those other campaigns as long as 1 other person bought the subscription? Your content will still share, you just can't be the one to turn on content sharing. If you're playing 5 games concurrently, it seems like DnD is a big part of your life, and if you're using DnDBeyond for all 5 of them its clearly useful to you. You could also have everyone split the subscription cost if they're using it so much as well.
Up from the dead... a little thread necromancy.
Any movement on this? Any idea if they will let us buy more campaign slots?
It's possible to apply as a club or a store and get more campaign slots. (Go here and make sure "Club or Store application" is chosen in the first drop-down) As far as I know, it's not possible for the "general public" to do so.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
Thanks, AD, I appreciate the update.
I agree, the limits that they provide for Campaign Content Sharing is a little vague, and the reasoning doesn't make sense. I also run several games for all of my friends, and typically they grow to the point of everyone having at least 1, if not 2, backup characters. On top of DMing more than 3 different campaigns each month. I wish they would provide a different way to enable content sharing, and also restrict content sharing as well.
I would really like the capability to control which source books were shared with a campaign. There are the toggles that allow you to turn off Homebrew, Critical Role, Playtest, MTG, and Eberrin content, but these are DURING CHARACTER CREATION. If these were settings that could be controlled within the Shared Campaign by the Dungeon Master, then that would prevent a lot of miscommunications between my players and I.
I refuse to purchase the Legendary Bundle, and the Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica until either 1.) All my players have demonstrated the understanding of how to control the content they have access to. or 2.) I have the ability to remove MTG from the "Shared Content" of the campaign itself. Another setting that would be wonderful would be the ability to Toggle Monster Races.
the I would rather have the capability to control what I share of mine within one of my campaigns that I created and shared with my friends. It makes more sense to have the Dungeon Master control the options available at the campaign level, than EACH individual controlling it during Character Creation. I know this could be difficult, but it would also be ideal in my eyes.